Standing Committee C

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Sex Discrimination (Clubs and Other Private Associations) Bill

Roger Gale: Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. If they have not already done so, members of the Committee may remove their jackets for their comfort. I am pleased to note that some hon. Gentlemen have presumed upon the understanding of the Chairman.Clause 1 Discrimination: private clubs

Clause 1 - Discrimination: private clubs

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wright: It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. I have done so before and it has always been an enjoyable experience. I hope not to delay the Committee for too long. I thank hon. Members for supporting me this afternoon.
 Clause 1 contains the essence of the Bill, which is about the right of women and men to be members, associates or guests of mixed-sex clubs without being subject to discrimination because of their sex. It also provides that, when men and women are invited as guests of a single-sex club, they must be accorded equal treatment. It might be worth my stating early in our proceedings what the Bill will not do. It will not require that single-sex clubs change their nature and admit members of the opposite sex. It will not force single-sex clubs to admit both men and women as guests. It will not require that women be admitted to mixed-sex clubs on preferential terms to men—indeed, it will outlaw that practice. 
 The Bill will end the old-fashioned, anomalous, insulting practice of some clubs of allowing women in, but treating them as second-class citizens. It will work by amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 from which private clubs are currently excluded. The measure is drafted in terms of discrimination against women because, in practice, it is intended to eliminate that problem. However, as I said on Second Reading, each reference to women applies equally to men. The Bill will protect men, too, from discrimination. Although I shall speak mainly about discrimination by clubs against women, my Bill will equally outlaw discrimination against men. 
 Clause 1 defines the organisations that the Bill will bring within the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act: associations with 25 or more members whose membership is regulated by a constitution, so that they are not simply providing services to the public. A club 
 whose constitution restricts membership to persons of one sex will not be required to change its nature, but when an organisation admits both sexes—even if it does so on unequal terms at present—the clause will make it unlawful for that organisation to discriminate against a woman by refusing her membership or benefits, facilities or services that it provides to members under its terms of membership. That does not mean that a mixed-sex club cannot refuse to admit a woman, but that the terms and conditions of its membership must not discriminate against women. 
 Guests of mixed-sex clubs must also be treated without discrimination on the grounds of sex. In respect of guests only, the Bill will cover single-sex clubs of 25 or more members. When both men and women are invited as guests, it will be unlawful to treat women less favourably than men. Thus, if a male guest is free to use the main staircase or to buy a drink at the bar in a club, it will be unacceptable to require a woman guest to use the back stairs or to rely on a man to purchase her drinks—a very good thing, too, as most members of the Committee would agree. 
 The clause is quite long, providing definitions of members, associates and guests. It makes it clear that, for example, trade unions and employers' associations already covered by the Sex Discrimination Act do not fall within the scope of the Bill. A single-sex club that provides honorary or ex officio membership to an exceptional member of the excluded sex does not thereby forfeit its single-sex status for the purposes of the Bill. There has been some debate about whether Mrs. Thatcher could be a member of the Carlton club. I assure members of the Committee that, under the Bill, Mrs. Thatcher could be a member of the Carlton club because the clause would apply in such circumstances. I have nothing further to say about Mrs. Thatcher's membership of the Carlton club, save that I hope that she enjoys it.

Peter Bottomley: I am pleased to be a member of the Committee. I cannot remember how many Conservatives spoke on Second Reading, although I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The Bill's scope is moderate, and its impact will be moderate and welcome. However, will the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), either now or later during consideration of the Bill, reply to the argument advanced in a letter that I received and that he, too, may have received, from the Royal and Ancient golf club in Scotland?
 The club argues that poorer clubs may suffer because of the Bill. I intend to respond by saying that, although it may cause some difficulties, they must be faced. There has been a history of people finding reasons why things cannot be done. When the Sex Discrimination Bill went through Parliament in 1975, which is roughly in line with my memory of events, our then colleague Ronald Bell made what appeared to be a totally innocuous remark—in fact, it was awful—about race discrimination in clubs. The day when the colour of one's skin is no more important than the colour of one's eyes or hair, and when one's sex is unimportant because places accept both sexes, will be 
 greatly welcomed. One should not have to say that, because of their sex, one's child or grandchild will be treated differently by private clubs in their teenage years or adult life. 
 We heard mention of Margaret Thatcher, and it is worth recalling what happened when she attended the by-election in what was then Woolwich, West with two other Conservatives in 1975. We knew that she was coming to the Eltham Conservative club, and someone asked, ''What happens about the men-only side of the club?'' I said, ''I am sure that the problem will not arise.'' When she was welcomed to the club, she was told, ''This is the way that ladies go in,'' but she went in the other way. She saw everyone in the men-only side of the bar, but no one thought that anything unusual had happened. If that was all right for Margaret Thatcher, it is all right for the rest of us—whether we are guests, associate members or whatever. 
 I welcome the progress marked by the Bill. The fact that there has not been a great deal of argument from those who think that they will be adversely affected leaves us with the view that very few people will be adversely affected. In a collection of essays called ''Unpopular Opinions'', which was published in about 1941, I think, Dorothy Sayers said that the difference between mainland Europe and these islands was that people in mainland Europe talk about equality while we talk about fairness. At their best, however, fairness and equality come together. As the hon. Gentleman said, he is trying not to make single-sex clubs into mixed-sex clubs but to put men and women in clubs on the same terms. That is fair, and that is why I welcome the clause.

Jim Knight: I rise to make clear my wholehearted support for the Bill and for the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Telford has done on it. My interest in the subject goes back to when I was first elected. I was inspired by a constituent, Mr. Julian Oddy, who has written to me on many occasions about it and about the policy of the Working Men's Club and Institute Union. I am glad that the issue is being addressed and that I can report back to Mr. Oddy.
 I have one question for my hon. Friend, although perhaps the Minister can give the Department's view when she responds. How will the Bill affect clubs involved in team sports? Weymouth Labour club in my constituency relies on sports teams to generate quite a lot of trade and membership. In sports such as football, adults are separated on the basis of gender. Will the Bill affect the ability of clubs to continue running teams on that basis?

John Randall: I shall probably match the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) for brevity. First, however, I apologise for being a little unprepared. I was notified of the Committee's proceedings only on Saturday, and I thought that Committees discussing private Member's Bills normally met on Wednesdays.
 I have a couple of questions for either the promoter or the Minister. First, what is the reason for the specification in new section 29A(1)(a) that, to be covered, an association should have 
''twenty-five or more members''? 
Is the figure arbitrary, or is it already established in statute for private clubs? Secondly, what is the position regarding discriminatory subscriptions? I do not suggest that they are desirable.

Jacqui Smith: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford on having introduced the Bill. It has the full support of the Government and of other parties, although Labour Members are particularly well represented today. This overdue measure will extend to members and guests of private clubs the protection against discrimination on the grounds of sex that, 30 years after the Sex Discrimination Act, is expected in all areas of life.
 The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) mentioned the letter from the Royal and Ancient. Among other things, it highlighted the cost implications of the necessary changes and the larger impact on smaller clubs. Assuming—and hoping—that the Bill will become legislation, we shall discuss with organisations such as the Royal and Ancient the introduction of reasonable transition arrangements, so that sufficient time is allowed for changes to be made to enable the Bill's sensible objective to be achieved. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset described the situation of Weymouth Labour club's no doubt successful football team. I can give him the reassurance that he seeks on sports. Section 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act provides a general exemption from the Act for any act relating to participation as a competitor in 
''any sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature where the physical strength, stamina or physique of the average woman puts her at a disadvantage to the average man''. 
That means that single-sex sporting competitions run by private clubs will not be affected by the legislation. 
 The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) asked why the threshold had been set at 25 members. That reflects similar provisions in the Race Relations Act 1976 and in the draft Disability Discrimination Bill. Under the Licensing Act 1964, a club must have a minimum of 25 members in order to get a liquor licence, indicating that such a club might have a bar that trades in order to encourage socialising. 
 I do not want to detain the Committee for long; there is a helpful measure of consensus—

John Randall: The Minister might have the answer to my question about subscriptions. Will the Bill outlaw differences between the subscriptions paid to private clubs by men and those paid by women?

Jacqui Smith: My understanding is that the Bill would make it illegal for a club to have two different subscription levels and to differentiate solely on the basis of gender. It would, however, be quite reasonable
 and legitimate for, say, a golf club to have two different forms of membership such as off-peak membership and full membership. Indeed, it would be quite legitimate for a club to continue to have a whole range of different subscription levels provided that none of them discriminated on the basis of gender—for example, the club not offer one type of membership that was open only to women and another that was open only to men. The Bill will enable clubs to continue to be fairly flexible and offer different types of subscription.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister is leading us to an example of fairness benefiting men who are members of a club. A club may fear that it will lose money if it offers restricted membership to men who want only partial benefits, but the other side of the coin is that the those men will get what they pay for, as will the women who choose restricted membership, and women who opt for full membership will receive the full benefit. Clubs face that problem, but that should not be affected by the fairness of legislation.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. One of the aims of a transition period is to enable clubs to plan their forms of subscription so that they can earn the necessary income. It is arguable that men are currently discriminated against in some clubs because they do not have access to some of the off-peak or lower priced memberships.
 As I said, there is useful consensus on the Bill. Sex discrimination in the workplace, in education and in the provision of goods and services was outlawed nearly 30 years ago by the Sex Discrimination Act. As we heard today, no one would defend some of the behaviour that was commonplace before 1975. A whole generation of young women and young men have grown up expecting, rightly, to be treated as equals and to be judged on merit, not according to gender. However, some private clubs do not take that approach. Time seems to have stood still for them and, unfortunately, not enough clubs have taken the opportunity to make the sort of progress that the Government hoped that they would make voluntarily. That means that women in some clubs are still stereotyped, marginalised and treated as second-class citizens.

Vera Baird: I ask my right hon. Friend for reassurance. A club in my constituency does not allow women to play snooker, although there is nothing about that in the rules. When ask why, the answer—which was far too complicated to detail in an intervention—was backed up by the phrase, ''It's just customary in here that women can't play snooker.'' May I take it as read that new section 29A(4)(a) will outlaw any such unofficial rules, as well as the official ones?

Jacqui Smith: Yes, my hon. and learned Friend can take it as read that the Bill will outlaw such discrimination. It is precisely that archaic approach to
 the participation of men and women in our private clubs that the Bill is designed to outlaw. Such behaviour is simply unacceptable in the 21st century.
 In conclusion, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford on promoting this excellent Bill and on the assured way in which he has piloted it thus far. I am sure that he will continue to steer its progress in the same assured manner. I very much hope that it will shortly complete its progress in the House and that it will reach the statute book by the end of the Session. He will deserve great congratulation when that happens.

David Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks. She has covered most of the points that were raised by hon. and right hon. Members during the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Worthing, West in particular for his support, both in formal proceedings on the Bill and in our conversations outside the House's official proceedings. He mentioned the letter from the Royal and Ancient. I am due to meet representatives from the golf unions on Thursday to discuss the Bill's general impact, and last week, I spoke on the telephone to Peter Dawson, who is the secretary of the R and A—in fact, we are in constant dialogue.
 If the Bill is successful, there will be issues about transitional arrangements. I welcome what the Minister said about those potential arrangements. One of the problems relates to the different types of membership offered by golf clubs. Men might not be allowed to benefit from reduced membership fees—they might have to apply for full membership, even though there are other membership criteria and other forms of membership available. Some men might like to pay a reduced fee and therefore have limited access to the course. The Bill would allow men and women to apply for and receive the same types of membership, whether full, associate or restricted, in terms of playing times. That would be acceptable, but such choices would have to be open to men and women.

Peter Bottomley: In the same way, in some golf clubs I might be able to enjoy full rights playing off 24, yet Babe Zaharias, playing off scratch, would not. It would be perfectly legal for a club to say that to play during peak time, one must have a certain handicap. That could apply equally to men and women, which keeps things fair, but keeps the bad players such as myself out of the way when it matters.

David Wright: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would be sitting in the bar with him, because my golf is appalling. One of my friends told me that I spend more time digging additional bunkers on courses than completing rounds of golf. The hon. Gentleman and I would be sharing a dram in the club house, while those who could play, be they men or women, progressed round the course.
 The CIU has written to me and we have met to discuss the Bill. The CIU supports the Bill wholeheartedly and I welcome the progress that the union has made. I look forward to seeing the Bill come forward, if we continue to pilot it through the House. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Exceptions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 David Wright: Clause 1 brings clubs within the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, whereas clause 2 provides for a number of exceptions for special circumstances in which it is right to allow different treatment of men and women. 
 The Sex Discrimination Act does not prevent political parties from making special provision for one sex in their constitution, organisation or administration, such as, for example, by having women's sections or reserving some seats on committees for women. Voluntary bodies whose main purpose is to provide benefits for only one sex are not thereby in breach of the Act, and nothing in the Bill affects that provision. 
 Section 35 of the Sex Discrimination Act contains a number of exceptions to allow for the provision of single-sex facilities or services where they are established for people who require special care, supervision or attention, or in a place used for organised religion, where such provision is required by that religion's doctrine or is done to avoid offending the religious sensibilities of a significant number of its followers. Such provision is also allowed where the facilities are likely to be used by two or more persons at the same time and users of one sex are likely to be embarrassed by the presence of members of the opposite sex or to be in a state of undress, and therefore reasonably able to object to the presence of the opposite sex. Finally, such provision is available where there is likely to be physical contact between the user and another person who might reasonably object if the user were a member of the opposite sex: I think of sessions for one sex only in a leisure club or swimming pool, which would be allowed to continue under the proposals. The clause extends each of those exceptions, so that they can also apply to private clubs. 
 The clause also adds two new exceptions to the Sex Discrimination Act for private clubs. The first provides that a club such a drama society or choir does not discriminate if, for reasons of authenticity, it selects people of the appropriate sex for roles in a dramatic performance or other entertainment. That mirrors a provision in the Sex Discrimination Act that deals with employment. 
 Peter Bottomley: To help those who read the Committee's proceedings will the hon. Gentleman say to which subsection he is referring?

David Wright: Clause 2(5), paragraph (4) relates to authenticity in a dramatic performance or other entertainment. That part of the Bill relates to how drama societies perform.

John Randall: I think I understand the reasons for the proposal, but presumably, it would be unacceptable if it were in race relations legislation, because normally we would assume that there can be, for example, a white ''Othello'' or a black ''Mikado'' in productions. I wonder whether the proposal mirrors the Race Relations Act 1976.

David Wright: I understand that it does. I believe that such performances are allowed to proceed, but I will have to check the details.

John Randall: It is not so much whether the clause allows a dramatic performance to discriminate, but whether it would be allowed to do so in regard to race.

David Wright: As far as I can understand, in relation to race, no one can have genuine occupational qualifications. I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. Clearly, people would be allowed to take an authentic role in a dramatic production.

Jim Knight: I used to be an actor, and I promoted the arts. I oppose any measure that would interfere with people's artistic rights to interpret and cast in a way that put across a particular point. Someone could cast a whole production according to race in order to make an artistic point as part of an interpretation, and I should be amazed if that was not in common under race relations legislation.

David Wright: Indeed. The point of the Bill is that it relates to discrimination against men or women. What it tries to achieve is very narrow, and it relates to the Sex Discrimination Act. Hon. Members will have to refer to the Race Relations Act if they want to look at the issue in more detail. The Bill deals specifically with discrimination in respect of men and women who would be members of private clubs.

Peter Bottomley: So, if a club decided to put on a ballet, where both male and female parts were taken by a single sex, would that be lawful or unlawful? I know that that can happen in the commercial theatre but I am not sure about private clubs.What would happen if a private club wanted to put on a pantomime? Would it be lawful to insist that the dame was a woman, or the principal boy male?

David Wright: It is lawful for those events to proceed, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As far as I am aware, such pantomimes could continue, as the Bill would not relate to them. It ensures, in terms of the authenticity of drama productions, that people are allowed to proceed and cast accordingly.

Peter Bottomley: I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's point now, but he may want to consider the detail of the Bill before Report, which will not be a very long time distant if there are no amendments in Committee. The question is not what the Bill's objective is, but what it will do if it becomes an Act.
 That issue should have detailed consideration, if not on Report, then in another place, or else we may make a pantomime out of the exception to the pantomime.

David Wright: As far as I am aware, the law is clear on the matter. The point is about authenticity, and organisations would be able to pursue performances that are authentic. That would relate to pantomimes or any other performance. That is my understanding of the Bill; it is a specific Bill dealing with sex discrimination against men or women in private members' clubs. I could reply to the hon. Gentleman on Report, if he is interested, but the objectives of the Bill are narrow.
 The other exception provides that an association for members of a religion does not discriminate if it restricts membership, or the terms thereof, or access to any benefits, facilities or services to one sex in order to comply with the doctrines of the religion and avoid offending the religious sensibilities of a significant number of its followers. The exception would not give an association an absolute right to discriminate just because it existed for members of a religion. It would apply only where the restriction was for religious reasons. Therefore, a Muslim community organisation might be able to demonstrate that there was a religious basis for segregating some of its activities, because the tenets of the religion required that men and women did not mix for those purposes. However, a Catholic social club could not claim the exception as a basis for refusing women members access to the snooker room. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) will be pleased to hear that. 
 Clause 2 will make it possible for clubs that wish to do so to take steps to encourage a more balanced membership and more equal representation in their governance. A number of Rotary clubs, for example, which were previously for men only, have opened their doors to women but find that few are choosing to join or take office. Such a club would, without discriminating unlawfully, be able to take steps to encourage women to join, or to provide training to women members to prepare them to join the committee or take up posts. 
 Mr. Randall: I think that the Rotary organisation has a parallel women's organisation. Although many Rotary clubs have women members, the opposite does not apply to the women's organisations. Would the exemption that the hon. Gentleman mentioned allow the women-only sections of a Rotary club—I think that they are called the ''inner wheel''—to continue as they are? 
 David Wright: As far as I am aware, that would be allowed to continue if it were within the parameters promoting women's membership in the club. I shall have to check that detail in relation to Rotary clubs. They would be allowed to continue where they are promoting increased women's membership. 
 The exception would not allow discrimination in membership or selection for office in the club. Employers and trade unions are already permitted by the Sex Discrimination Act to take such steps where women are under-represented among those doing particular work, or among their membership. The test for under-representation will be the same. Clubs, like trade unions, will also be able to create or reserve seats for members of one sex on committees, or other elected bodies, in the interests of ensuring that there is a minimum reasonable level of representation. 
 The Bill will not impose any requirements on clubs to take positive steps of any kind, but I like to think that many will wish to do so, particularly when they are seeking to overcome a history of exclusion of women from membership or governance. I am convinced that clubs have a great deal to gain from making full use of the energy and talents of people who have been sidelined until now. Many clubs have made repeated efforts to change rules that discriminate against women, only to be frustrated by a blocking minority of men. I hope that when the Bill frees them to move into the 21st century in this respect, they will make full use of the opportunities that it provides.

Peter Bottomley: I welcome the way in which the hon. Gentleman and the Government have approached exceptions; give or take the question I asked, they sound about right. I do not expect a full response to my next question, but it might be worth the Minister checking how far the word ''association''—whether corporate or not corporate—overlaps with both charitable and religious bodies. I am concerned that we should be fair and allow opportunities for natural development for such things as an Islamic social and welfare society, for example, which overlaps with religious and cultural organisations and that may have some parts that could properly be regarded as an association for purposes other than religion or charity, as those are commonly seen.
 Where a religion treats men and women differently, we must, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, tread with some sensitivity. For all that there might be natural developments whereby women are able to take a fuller part, it is only recently that they have been able to take a full part—or nearly a full part—in the Church of England, which is the Christian denomination of which I am a member. I hope that the Muslim Council of Britain, and others, have had the opportunity to consider whether further adjustments to exemptions might be worth considering. At the moment, it is better to err with generosity on the exemption issue in areas of doubt and to try to make progress slowly in those sorts of areas. Most of the exemptions are perfectly justified and reasonable and would be accepted without difficulty by those who are included in the provisions for exemption and by those who are not. I leave the hon. Gentleman with the thought that it is worth checking with any of the main religions of the world—let alone those of this country—whether they see any problems that have not been considered.

Rob Marris: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale, and I also welcome the sterling efforts of my hon. Friend—and near neighbour—the Member for Telford (David Wright) in promoting the Bill.
 I wanted to raise two issues. I can raise the first only in relation to the exceptions clause. I seek clarification from my hon. Friend or from my right hon. Friend the Minister that the measure would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does, because so many Acts apply differently in different parts of the country. 
 Secondly, I want to echo some of the comments that were made by the hon. Member for Worthing, West about religion. I wonder whether the provision might be reviewed on Report? In subsection (5), new subsection (6), would ''religious denomination'' be more felicitous wording? In his remarks on the clause my hon. Friend mentioned the Catholic club. As I understand it, Catholicism is not a religion, but a denomination of Christianity, albeit a large one.

Peter Bottomley: No.

Rob Marris: I stand to be corrected by a communicant of Church of England. Christianity is the religion and there are denominations of it, just as there might arguably be of Islam—Sunni and Shi'a. I urge my hon. Friend to examine that matter, because of the sensitivities that were referred to by the hon. Member for Worthing, West.

David Wright: I appreciate those constructive remarks. I will take on board the comments made by the hon. Member for Worthing, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) about the religious groupings issues. They are important.
 I will return to that point in relation to a later clause, but there is an opportunity for the introduction of the Bill to be phased. Before it goes forward, we must ensure that its parameters are right. There is an opportunity for organisations and groups to have further discussions about when the Secretary of State will implement the Bill in relation to them. It is important to record that.

Peter Bottomley: May I make one other suggestion? I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to accept or reject it straightaway. Is it worth while at a later stage considering a provision for adjustments to be made to exemptions by secondary legislation? Some exemptions may need to be tightened up in time when there are transitions and some might need to be loosened if someone discovers that the Bill is acting in an unintended way. If there is no such provision, it may be worth considering one at a later stage of the Bill's passage through Parliament.

David Wright: I take the hon. Gentleman's comments on board. That provision may be something that the Lords will wish to consider as they examine the Bill. I thank him for his broad support for the proposal.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Consequential amendment

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wright: After two long and fairly complex clauses, I am happy to turn to clause 3, which is short and simple. I am sure that you will be delighted with that, Mr. Gale.
 The clause is a consequential amendment to schedule 7 of the Licensing Act 1964, which relates to requirements for the issue or renewal of registration certificates under that Act. If club rules conform to the model rules set out in that schedule, there is a presumption that certain requirements for registration are satisfied. One of the rules is that members must have equal voting rights at a general meeting, subject to some exceptions, one of which permits such rights to be restricted to men if the club is primarily a men's club or to women if it is primarily a women's club. Such rules would be prohibited under new section 29A of the Sex Discrimination Act. The exception is therefore no longer appropriate, and clause 3 removes it.

Peter Bottomley: This is a welcome consequential amendment. It may be worth saying in passing, if I can do it in one sentence, that golf clubs were hit by the unintended consequence of changes to the alcohol licensing regime, and non-members and others found themselves in trouble; I do not anticipate it, but I hope that no such problem will be tied to this consequential amendment. When the hon. Gentleman next meets the golf club representatives, he might ask how their conversation is going with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport over that problem.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Member for Worthing, West raised that point also on Second Reading, and I understand that the difficulty outlined in the letter he mentioned, a copy of which he was kind enough to pass me, is linked to misunderstandings about how the Licensing Act 2003 will affect clubs. I understand that that has now been cleared up. Following a meeting between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the English Golf Union, golf clubs will still be able to treat visitors as guests and allow them use of the bar and other facilities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that those issues are being taken up. However, Mr. Gale—I thank you for your forbearance—it is not a matter for the Bill, which is concerned only with the equal treatment of men and women as members or guests of clubs.
 I would make one further but important point on the question of voting. I believe that only one speaker, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, opposed the Bill—at least, he seemed very sceptical about it—on Second Reading. His argument was that those who did not like the rules of a club could vote to change them. The point is that in private clubs, woman 
 are often restricted from voting. It is that sort of unfortunate discrimination that the Bill aims to overcome, which, of course, links to clause 3. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Short title, extent, commencement and transitional provisions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wright: The final clause is mostly technical. It sets out the short title and scope of the Bill; it provides for the Act to come into effect on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State; and it allows for necessary transitional provisions to be made by order.
 We have discussed in some detail this afternoon the fact that we would need to ensure an ongoing debate with clubs and associations about transitional arrangements. The R and A and other golf clubs have spoken of their need for a long transitional period. Five years has been suggested, but I hope that it will not take that long for organisations and clubs to take on the simple provisions of the Bill, particularly in relation to the use of bars and facilities. I do not see why clubs cannot open bars and facilities immediately to both men and women members. Some investment may required to ensure that the facilities are of a good quality, but I hope that it could be done fairly rapidly.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has put the case for clause 4 very adequately. He may want to check that the wording is as it should be, and whether the Secretary of State should be able to make transitional provisions rather than provision. I realise that if ''provision'' is plural, it will not be necessary. However, the point may be worth checking with the parliamentary draftsman, because the Secretary of State may want to make more than one such provision to allow for various time scales. I suspect that the wording is fine, but it is worth raising the issue for consideration.
 The key point is that giving people rights and making some things into wrongs does not necessarily change things instantly. We would not have more than 2,000 people a week committing first-time serious criminal offences if making something unlawful stopped it from happening. It does not do that, but, rather, provides penalties, although I am glad that we 
 are not troubled too much by penalties in this amending Bill. The Bill will give a clear signal to clubs that those that have made changes have done the right thing, that those making such changes are doing the right thing, and that those that have not considered it should get on and make those changes. 
 I have been involved with a City livery company, which has tried, over the decades, to move on to what some call equality, which I call fairness. We did that by discussing whether we could treat people on merit and realising that sex is not merit. That message needs to go out to clubs, some of which do not need this legislation because they have already made or are making those changes, but some of which probably need it in order to catch up with the clubs that have got rid of unnecessary discrimination and are the better for it. It is fairness that matters most. People should not face unfair discrimination. Much discrimination that people thought justified has turned out not to be, and the sooner it dies the better. 
 Rob Marris: I understand that the Bill will not cover Northern Ireland because the 1975 Act does not, and that there are different anti-discrimination statute revisions for Northern Ireland. I seek the Minister's assurance that the Government will shortly introduce parallel anti-discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland if it does not already exist.

David Wright: I am sure that the Minister will be keen to drop my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West a line about the Government's view on that point. It is rare for me to be in a position to say something like that in Standing Committee—I hope that the Minister does not mind.
 I thank those who have taken the time to come along this afternoon and those who have supported and assisted me with the construction of the Bill and its passage so far. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Officers of the House, without whose assistance our work would be much harder. I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford on the smooth passage of his Bill through Committee.
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
Committee rose at seventeen minutes past Five o'clock.